NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (2 Viewers)

Doc, I really don't want to pile on, but in the time I've been here, you absolutely have shown a pronounced habit of arbitrarily discarding any and all facts and arguments that don't match your preconceived beliefs, be they political or scientific. If you don't already agree with or believe it, then you will never, under any circumstances seriously consider any new fact or argument. You've shown that time and again, from your utter lack of comprehension of what socialism actually is beyond 'BIG SCARY WORD' (and absolute refusal to even consider rectifying your ignorance) to your complete embrace of even the most repugnant aspects of Trumpism to your woeful lack of understanding of climate science. It's like arguing with an anti-vaxxer: no matter what evidence you say or what knowledge you try to provide, they will always reject it because vaccines contain scary elements and they just saw a site that proves the Illuminati are trying to murder most of humanity with secret vaccine-transmitted poisons and give the rest of us autism so they can go on with their nefarious deeds. That's basically what attempting to discuss anything (outside the realm of computer science) with you is like.

In a nutshell, you're a fanatic, which is why I stopped even attempting to have conversations with you. I'm honestly amazed Colin and Galaxiom still try.

Frothy, I'm truly sorry that you think that way about me. For what it is worth, while I have often disagreed with you, I find you more often than not a reasonable person.

One of your comments: As to what Socialism really is, it means different things to different people. To worry about and try to provide for caring for the elderly, infirm, and indigent at a societal level is ONE such definition, and I have fewer issues there. However, there are other definitions of socialism that depend on who is talking. There, I have to take pause to try to understand what is being said. And I absolutely DO care about the issue of "Who will decide the amount of support needed for the group being supported?" Redistribution of wealth is NOT the answer. Improvement of people's ability to be more self-sufficient IS a better answer. What's the old Chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

A comment on conspiracies: Fortunately, I understand the Illuminati better. (I even have the parlor game!) They make GREAT villains in fiction, witness the Illuminati trilogy from the mid-20th century and their presence in the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider movie. I'm not worried about that kind of conspiracy. Does this world LOOK like someone with any intelligence runs it as a whole?

I am unable to adequately convey my extreme misgivings about the science used in the global warming discussions. Here is the ultimate test. When I look at the graphs and learn about how numeric methods of interpolation have been used on data sources, I suddenly realize there is NOTHING in the presentations of the AGW crowd that I can trust. When I see the presentations, I see fudged data. I see things that I could not interpret statistically in the way that is being described in words.

I will accept the criticism of being unable to communicate my misgivings in a way that clarifies the matter to others. For that, I apologize for my shortcomings. But I learned a long time ago to interpret graphs and to understand statistics and methods of analysis. It is in that specific area that I find issues. What I see with my eyes and what I hear in words from the AGW crowd just don't match.

Other comments: I know Trump is a strange bird. I won't defend his womanizing and I know he is abrasive. But he DOES represent at least some of the ideas I had about government, i.e. ways to reduce it so that it costs less. I freely admit I voted for him - but only as the least of several possible evils. And specifically, I voted AGAINST Hillary because to me, she was the antithesis of what the country actually needed. So if you don't like that fact that I voted for Trump, fine.

In closing, Frothy, I want to ask you a question, and try to be open-minded about it for JUST A MOMENT. You can see online all sorts of programs, articles, headlines, and commentary trying to expose the AGW crowd for a sham. I am not asking you to switch sides in your beliefs, but do you at least understand that the presence of these anti-AGW articles presenting data from a wider time range is evidence that the science is NOT settled? I'm only asking the narrow question here. If you believe in AGW, fine. I only want to know if you can see why I am still skeptical.

I've followed the climate change fight for half of my adult life by now. As with my political beliefs, I've moved from the conservative 'it's a hoax' stance to the liberal 'it's a threat to all life' position in the late 90's and early 2000's. I regularly check up on the for and against arguments, although not in the detail Galaxiom does, and I have always found the 'anti-AGW' crowd's data and reporting to be fatally and fundamentally flawed as well as deliberately slanted. The one thing, however, that really, truly jumps out at me is that while the 'it's not real' crowd does push out a ton of articles, they're coming from an EXTREMELY tiny number of sources, most of which have obvious financial or political ties to entities with vested interests in 'proving' it's a non-issue.

Between those ties and the ridiculously tiny number of sources compared to all the reports indicating it to be a biosphere-threatening danger, I have to strongly disagree that it is 'not settled'. We're talking about roughly the same proportion of people who argue that vaccines are 'not settled', despite their proven effectiveness, and I don't see you arguing that vaccines aren't settled science. Honestly, all I see is a tiny crowd putting out a lot more sound than its size would suggest it capable of, a batch of political and corporate leaders buying into the idea because it increases their own wealth and power, and a crowd of gullible Americans buying into it because their leaders tell them to.

(And no, that's not really the slam it sounds like - I've seen a number of studies all showing that conservative natures and authoritarian tendencies go hand-in-hand. And by 'authoritarian tendencies' in this case, I very much mean 'I believe this because someone in a position of authority told it to me.' That's always been one of the great divides between liberals and conservatives throughout human history.)

As to politics, I'm disappointed you voted for Trump, no more, and everyone is allowed, after all, to vote how they want. What angers me is when I see you (or anyone else, really) accepting his most barbaric and anti-American actions such as instituting a policy of stripping children from parents specifically to scare immigrants away, or any other of his multitude of attacks on democratic norms. I really couldn't care less about Trump's womanizing and abrasiveness, other than remarking on the idiocy of all those 'Good Christians' declaring him to be anointed by God. What I'm against is his constant attacks on the foundations of democracy itself, his blatant racism, his glaringly obvious corruption, his constant sucking up to dictators and strongmen while attempting to destroy our closest alliances, and his sheer brutality in his attempts to Make America White Again. And it appalls and enrages me any time I see an educated person cheering on behavior such as tearing families apart and gassing women and children simply because, when all the propaganda is stripped away, they aren't white.

So my issue with you isn't that you voted for Trump; it's for your avowed support of even the most vile and destructive actions he's taken. I don't expect us to agree on, say, gun control or abortion rights, but I had, sadly, hoped we could agree that stealing children from their families and gassing non-combatants was wrong.

Also, don't take me for a conspiracy theorist. While the Illuminati, as you mentioned, make for wonderful antagonists in stories (btw, since you're something of a gamer, you should really try the Deus Ex games, possibly starting with the relatively recent Human Revolution), I don't for a moment believe they exist in real life. Rx_ is the local conspiracy theorist, not me.

Edit: And just to make it perfectly clear, the Illuminati were included as an example of just how ridiculous the anti-vaxxers can get. You should SEE the stuff one anti-vaxxer I know keeps sending me, and I don't even HAVE kids! Anyway, I in no way, shape, or form, believed that you think they are real.

Oh, and let's not forget the blatant hypocrisy in claiming you couldn't vote for Clinton because of her emails, but being perfectly fine with the Trumps (and, I believe, Kushner) using private email servers and unsecured cell phones for government business, not to mention Trump overriding the TS/SCI determinations for his children and Kushner.

That, by and large, proves that your objection to Clinton had nothing to do with her emails, regardless of what you keep saying.

The most revealing post of Doc's despicable nature was when he justified historical slavery in the USA in another thread, claiming that it was an "economic necessity" at the time.

His denial of climate change is probably also linked to the "economic necessity" of continuing to build his personal wealth even if it destroyed the planet. AKA GREED.

Uncle Gizmo said:

This suggests that between 5% & 9% of CO2 is exhaled by humans!

Click to expand...

The carbon in the CO2 from the breath is derived from the food that is eaten. That food is grown using atmospheric CO2 so is a complete cycle.

The problem carbon being added to the atmosphere is the hundreds of billions of tonnes of fossil carbon which had been locked away for millions of years until humans dug it up and burned it.

His denial of climate change is probably also linked to the "economic necessity" of continuing to build his personal wealth even if it destroyed the planet. AKA GREED.

Click to expand...

G, I have no great personal wealth to speak of. Greed is not a factor. My investments are limited and I don't control them in detail; that is done by a retirement investment company. I make no money from my position. And I have FREQUENTLY agreed that climate changes are quite real. I have disagreed with the cause being pushed by the AGW group. DON'T YOU DARE accuse me of selling out to some group on this topic. NO MONEY is involved in any way. I have no sponsors, no speaking tour. I'm here in a forum where i offer my opinions. You don't like them. Fine. Just don't accuse me of being a sell-out, particularly since it seems that a lot of my scientific colleagues HAVE sold out to the government grants that keep them comfortable.

As to that crack about slavery, there is a nuance that you glossed over. Slavery was wrong, OK. Clear enough? If I stated it poorly at the time, I have admitted to sometimes being unclear. My comment perhaps should have been clearer. I am not going to say that slavery was right. I WILL, however, say that if you look at the economics of the time, you might understand why it was done. The people who kept slaves made the same mistakes that have occurred throughout history, including the way the Jews were treated during the Spanish Inquisition and in WW II, the way the Hutus and Tutsis treated each other in Rwanda in the mid-1990s, and the way the Christians have treated Muslims during the Crusades and in Kosovo more recently.

In all cases, the aggressors convinced themselves that something was "different" about their foes and that they were somehow "deserving" of the way they were treated. In ALL OF THOSE CASES, they were wrong. OK? If I haven't made it clear, you aren't listening. But my comments were not JUSTIFICATIONS. They were along the lines of "this was the reason they did something." That isn't a statement of being right. It is a statement of how they got that way, right or wrong. If you read that any other way, you betray your own prejudices.

I would think CNN would interview a climatologist every night for the last 10-12 years, after all this is a extinction level event. But sadly CNN would rather spend the precious moments we have left on this earth talking about Trump.

I wonder sometimes why that is? Could it be that Trump, Bush and Reagan are a bigger threat to the world then climate change? It's sad to think journalist would put our earth in peril just to get their guy elected.

Or just maybe there is a built-in bias in journalism and science? I guess its off to the state sponsored CNN re-education camps for me.

Frothy, I was unaware until recently of the Trump use of private servers. Technically, as POTUS, Trump DOES have the right to assign security clearances even if his choices are bad, so his actions with regard to Kushner's clearances have to be described as legal but poorly chosen.

At the time of the 2016 election, however, Trump wasn't in office and therefore any servers he used would have been private and legal. But Hillary WAS in office as Secretary of State and AT THAT TIME, it was one more nail in her coffin as far as I was concerned. Her handling of Bengazi was atrocious. Her ties to "big pharma" were troubling given the healthcare legislation I could see coming down the pike with her in office. Her prior association with nationalized health care strategies were also not very good in my political book. It is the sum of those things that made her unacceptable to me.

As to the separation of children of immigrants from their families, that wasn't pretty and I guarantee you it was a no-win situation.

Start with an illegal immigrant breaking our immigration laws - so those laws say we have to detain them in prison. These parents brought kids. So what do we do with the kids? Leave them in a prison with their parents? That's not right. Move them to another detention center where there is some experience in handling children? Separating families is not right either. Let them go to become street urchins (again separated from their parents)? That's not right. Let the parents go? That is contrary to law. This is clearly a case of "no good answer" and so you have to try to find the least of several evils.

Once the parents are in the country illegally, the only thing the border and ICE agents can do is obey the laws on the books. It is up to Congress to change the law, and so far they have not done that. The people of this country apparently don't want to elect someone who will "lighten up" on immigration control and ultimately, that is what would have to happen.

You CANNOT possibly suggest that we ignore the law? Because if so, that means you open the door for ignoring other laws - like gun control or child welfare or policing of criminal behaviors such as ra**, domestic violence, etc. Talk about your slippery slope to Hell! Ignoring the law is not the answer.

So Frothy, pardon the emphasis, but WHAT THE HELL DO YOU SUGGEST? Like I said, it is a no-win situation. Whose hearts do we break here? I don't have a good answer.

If all the ice of Antarctica went into the ocean what would be the change in temperature of the ocean. Latent heat of fusion to be considered.

OMG!

If I've read this right, it looks like the left wing Marxists want to use Climate Change as a weapon against Capitalism...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Uncle Gizmo said:

OMG!

If I've read this right, it looks like the left wing Marxists want to use Climate Change as a weapon against Capitalism...

Click to expand...

Still doesn't make the science wrong.

Galaxiom said:

Still doesn't make the science wrong.

Click to expand...

It is not 2 + 2 =4 science or V = U +AT etc. What the 2+ 2 =4 sciences all have in common is no political debate and with in general the left and right lining up on different sides.

Personally, I am happy to go along with a 2 degree C increase in temperature but the difficult one is what happens as a result. To me it is similar to health and diet and smoking etc. Things don't happen in isolation. Change one thing and something else changes. For example, life long smokers who are mid 60s and older and in good shape for their age generally do poorly in health if they cease smoking. One reason is all the other changes they make whether in diet, sleep or whatever. Compounding that is if they have been life long smokers and in good shape at mid 60s and old then whatever they previously did with diet, sleep etc. must have been right for their body. Of course if they could cease smoking and have 0 other changes then they would be better off. However, that does not happen. Likewise a 2 degree C change in temperature won't happen in isolation.

By the way do you know the answer to my question "If all the ice of Antarctica went into the ocean what would be the change in temperature of the ocean. Latent heat of fusion to be considered?"

Galaxiom said:

Still doesn't make the science wrong.

Click to expand...

No, science is never wrong or right, science is the best guess at something.

The reason I posted it and the reason for "OMG" is that Dr Jordan B Peterson has been warning everyone about the Marxist and leftist intentions, and I reckon he's right!

Now some people think that Jordan is right wing, however he's not, he's middle of the road, he wants society to be in the middle ground between both the extreme left and the extreme right. In fact he proposes that we need both right and left, it's the balance between the two that's important. What he's worried about at the moment is that the balance is shifting grammatically to the left, particularly in the universities.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Uncle Gizmo said:

No, science is never wrong or right, science is the best guess at something.

The reason I posted it and the reason for "OMG" is that Dr Jordan B Peterson has been warning everyone about the Marxist and leftist intentions, and I reckon he's right!

Now some people think that Jordan is right wing, however he's not, he's middle of the road, he wants society to be in the middle ground between both the extreme left and the extreme right. In fact he proposes that we need both right and left, it's the balance between the two that's important. What he's worried about at the moment is that the balance is shifting grammatically to the left, particularly in the universities.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not sure why you keep quoting Jordan Peterson. However its a matter of opinion whether he is in the centre ground.. I don't believe that to be the case and perhaps more tellingly, nor does he. JP describes himself as being conservative.

The big threat is how the left weaponize children. They can't seem to get their agenda passed using adults.

AccessBlaster said:

The big threat is how the left weaponize children. They can't seem to get their agenda passed using adults.

Click to expand...

Riiiight.

The Klan and white supremacy represents a tiny fraction of society. The classroom on the other hand represents about 99% of political indoctrination of children mostly run by democrats, pushing their kooky theories.

Hatred is where you find it. But, sadly, if you wanted some and couldn't find it, it is still not that hard to make it. Just start them young, before their reasoning skills have matured.

I had to grow up with a father who was at least sympathetic to the KKK ideals. He and I fought long and hard over that. He went to his grave with unresolved racial hatred. I learned better than that, thanks to a forgiving, kind, and caring mother who would NOT allow me the luxury of hating wholesale. She taught me that both trust AND hate were things that needed to be earned on an individual basis.